I remember the seventh Saw movie was released in theaters as Saw 3D, but then renamed to Saw: The Final Chapter when it was released on DVD. Having not seen it in theaters, it confused the heck out of me--I thought they were originally two different movies.
Well, when TWOK was originally released it was just Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. Subsequent re-releases changed it to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. But you're right, this is very rare, and the changed titles are usually very subtle.
Many, many years ago there was a Roger Moore film that went by the name of ffolks in theatrical release. When it showed up later on television and even home video it went by another name, which I'm damned if I can recall now.
That one had three titles. It was North Sea Hijack in the UK, Ffolkes internationally and Assault Force on TV.
Read A Princess of Mars a couple of months ago and enjoyed the hell out of it. I'm in the middle of Gods of Mars right now, and I'm not enjoying it as much. Burroughs seems to have amped up the level of ridiculousness and flowery Shakespeareanesque dialog. Plus, okay I know we have 100 years of story cliches under out belts since then, but it took Carter something like FIVE chapters to realize that the half-white boy who looked like Deja Thoris and had his own figthing style and super-strength was his son. Oh come ON!
How about Horror of the Blood Monsters (1970) aka Vampire Men of the Lost Planet aka Creatures of the Prehistoric Planet aka Creatures of the Red Planet aka Space Mission to the Lost Planet, etc....
I found Gods tough going myself a few months ago. Honestly, I always found John Carter to be a little dim. His fighting prowess is unmatched. He's an adept and forceful leader of men... err, Martians. His tactical genius is unquestioned. But when it comes to head smarts and recognizing what's in front of his face? He's not the sharpest tool in the shed.
I believe that was only the title on very early prints of the movie; it had already been changed to add the "II" during the movie's first run (which was reflected in the marketing). But it was slightly tweaked, yes.
Another sign that Disney probably won't be pursuing a sequel: Rich Ross resigned as chairman, partly because of the John Carter. http://thegrindstone.com/mentor/aft...ss-resigns-as-chairman-of-disney-studios-351/ It's really quite a shame. I thought it was a good film and now most will just remember it as a big flop.
John Carter will go on to earn a better rep in home video and television reruns as people see it wasn't the crapfest that so many made it out to be. Really, it was stupid how many seemed to jump on to the bandwagon pissing on a film that a lot of them probably never saw. People can be like lemmings. The shitty promotion for the film was lacklustre yet still I'm glad something still came through to interest me because upon seeing I was thoroughly entertained. After that I have nothing but scorn for those who dissed the film without seeing it themselves and just accepting "the word" going around. Here's a case of going viral in a bad way. Whereas studios usually hope something goes viral to interest the most number of people to see their film here's a case where the idea the film was bad went viral before it was even released.
Well, the reviewers certainly saw it, and they didn't seem to care for it, but I have a close friend who liked it, so I'll have to see for myself.
Considering I don't hold many reviewers in high regard then them not liking it doesn't carry much weight with me. I've seen too many films reviewers loved and left me unmoved as well as too many films reviewers dissed and I enjoyed.
^^ I agree. I never listen to critics, except to glean factual information that I can use to form a preliminary opinion. As for renaming movies, it was more common in the distant past, but under the circumstances I think it's a tradition worth reviving.
Well I was really bored, I knew nothing of it going in, so had no bias against it. It's not terrible, it's just not worth spending money on, in my opinion.
I think that's a little demeaning. The trailers and marketing simply didn't grab a lot of people, and the title was a huge HUGE mistake. Finally, I know a lot of people who DID see it and who found it mediocre—myself included. Thank goodness. It's a stupid title anyway because Indy happens to be one of the titular Raiders! By all means, see it and judge for yourself. I'd be interested in hearing your opinion.
I could tell the marketing was going off the rails when they announced what the name would be - long before any of the advertising hit (which was the nail in the coffin.) It's not people's fault if they ignore something that's good because the marketing is bad. People don't have time to sample everything. They depend on marketing and advertising to give them some indication of what's worthwhile. And any corporation should realize that they need to invest in a good product and in good marketing and advertising - doing half the job gets you nowhere.